WORKING PAPER 5
A Framework for
Institutional Analysis
for Water Resources
Management in a
River Basin Context
D. J. Bandaragoda
International Water Management Institute
SM
Working Paper 5
A Framework for Institutional Analysis
for Water Resources Management
in a River Basin Context
D. J. Bandaragoda
International Water Management Institute
IWMI gratefully acknowledges the financial support for its research work from the
following Governments, Development Banks, Agencies, and Foundations: Australia,
Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Iran, Japan, Netherlands,
Norway, Pakistan, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, European
Union, United Kingdom, and United States of America; African Development Bank
(AfDB), Asian Development Bank (ADB), and World Bank; Agricultural
Engineering Research Center (AERC), Council of Agriculture (COA), Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and International Fund for
Agricultural Development (IFAD); Chi-Seng Water Management and Development
Foundation, Environment Greening Foundation, Ford Foundation, Taoyan Irrigation
Research and Development Foundation, and Tsao-Jiin Memorial Foundation for
R&D for Agriculture and Irrigation. The Governments of India, Iran, Mexico, Nepal,
Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Turkey also provided program support for IWMI-related
activities in these countries.
The author: D. J. Bandaragoda is Senior Management Specialist, International Water
Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo, Sri Lanka.
The author gratefully acknowledges the comments and ideas received from M. Samad, Tushaar
Shah, R. Sakthivadivel, and Douglas J. Merrey in the preparation of this Working Paper.
Bandaragoda, D. J. 2000. A framework for institutional analysis for water resources
management in a river basin context. Working Paper 5. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water
Management Institute.
/water resources management / river basins / agricultural development / institutions /
organizations / institution building / policy / change / China / Indonesia / Nepal / Philippines / Sri
Lanka/
ISBN 92-9090-423-2
Copyright ? 2000, by IWMI. All rights reserved.
Please direct inquiries and comments to: [email protected]
Contents
Preface
..................................................................................................................
1.
INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................
1.1
The Document............................................................................................
1.2
Linkage with Study Objectives ....................................................................
1.3
Further Development ..................................................................................
v
1
1
1
2
2.
INSTITUTIONS, ORGANIZATIONS AND MANAGEMENT ................................
2.1
What Are "Institutions" and "Organizations"?...............................................
2.2
Interaction between Institutions and Organizations........................................
2.3
Institutions and Management Performance...................................................
2.4
A Broad Definition of Institutions for This Study..........................................
3
3
6
8
9
3.
INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT IN A
RIVER BASIN CONTEXT.........................................................................
3.1
Integrated Water Resources Management ....................................................
3.2
River Basin as the Unit of Analysis ..............................................................
3.3
On-Site Gains and Off-Site Implications.......................................................
3.4
Four Key Elements of the River Basin Perspective........................................
3.5
Why Focus on Institutional Framework in a River Basin Study? ....................
3.6
Institutional Environment of a River Basin ...................................................
11
11
12
13
15
17
19
4.
STUDY COMPONENTS LEADING TO INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS.................
4.1
Study Design for Institutional Assessment....................................................
4.2
Physical System and Institutions ..................................................................
4.3
Water Accounting and Institutional Analysis ................................................
4.4
Socioeconomic Situation and Institutions .....................................................
4.5
Performance Assessment and Institutional Analysis ......................................
4.6
Institutional Analysis for an Action Plan ......................................................
21
21
24
24
25
26
26
5.
HINTS FOR FORMULATING INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE ..................................
5.1
"Rules-in-Use" ...........................................................................................
5.2
Rule Enforcement.......................................................................................
5.3
Role of the Elite in Institutional Development...............................................
5.4
Difficulty in Effecting Institutional Change ..................................................
5.5
Replicability of Success Stories ...................................................................
5.6
Participatory Approach to Institutional Change .............................................
28
28
28
29
29
30
31
GUIDELINES FOR INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS................................................
6.1
Main Components of Water Institutions .......................................................
6.2
Classical Temple Metaphor of Institutional Analysis .....................................
6.3
Three Pillars of Institutional Analysis...........................................................
6.4
Suggested Method for Institutional Analysis .................................................
6.5
Appropriateness and Adequacy ...................................................................
6.6
Two Levels of Management ........................................................................
6.7
Strategic Planning.......................................................................................
LITERATURE CITED ....................................................................................................
34
34
35
37
38
40
42
42
43
6.
iii
iv
Preface
This document is meant to present a framework for analyzing the institutions related to water
management in a river basin context.
The design of the five-country regional study undertaken by IWMI on “Development of
Effective Water Management Institutions” provided a new methodology and a framework for
river basin studies. It consists of four key components of diagnostic investigations related to
water resources management in a river basin, which are interrelated. These key components are
the physical system, water accounting, socioeconomic situation and performance. This study
design is given in the Study’s Inception Report of 15 June 1999, and the Methodological
Guidelines of 1 October 1999.
This document takes one step further, and provides a conceptual framework for analyzing the
institutional framework for water resources management in a river basin. The major thrust of this
framework for institutional analysis is that the four key areas of diagnostic studies in a river basin
are shown to be closely linked to the institutional framework for integrated water resources
management in the context of a river basin.
Using the river basin as the unit of analysis, this conceptual framework seeks to explore the
utility of diagnostic studies to develop an effective institutional framework. The diagnostic
studies in the river basin help in linking the analysis both to the physical dimension of the water
resource, which is related to its location, type, quantity and quality, and the nonphysical
dimension, which is related to its users, stakeholders and their interests, preferences and
objectives. In addition, the basin-based diagnostic studies can also link the analysis to the time
dimension of the water resource, which is both the historicity and the sustainability related to the
use of water in the basin.
Based on the simple, but broad, definition of the term “institutions,” which has been chosen
for this study on the basis of an extensive literature review, the suggested framework for
institutional analysis focuses on evaluating three main pillars of institutions, namely, laws,
policies and administration. The institutional environment of human actions is seen as a necessary
but not a sufficient condition for management performance. Effectiveness of water management
institutions, therefore, is seen in their ability to provide an appropriate and adequate structure to
human actions involved in water management, a structure that can be used with least transaction
costs.
Finally, the document provides a very brief set of guidelines, supported by an outline of some
issues, constraints and prospects of institutional change. Particularly, it promotes the idea of
developing a contextually appropriate and adequate institutional framework, essentially through a
participatory approach involving all stakeholder groups.
v
A FRAMEWORK FOR INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS
FOR WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
IN A RIVER BASIN CONTEXT
1.
1.1
INTRODUCTION
The Document
This document serves as a framework for institutional analysis to be used in the study on
“Development of Effective Water Management Institutions” (objectives of the study are given in
section 1.2 below). The document takes into account some critical issues on institutional
development, including the persistent gap in performance between developed and developing
countries, and the disappointing results of many institutional solutions attempted to reduce that
gap. Also, another important question is how, to what extent and under what conditions can the
success stories of institutional development be replicated. The main thrust of the document is that,
based on the contextual factors and lessons drawn from success stories, a participatory process
involving all stakeholder groups to identify locally adaptable institutional strategies is the more
viable and productive approach to institutional change.
Following this introductory section, the document includes in its section 2 an outline of some
concepts and interpretations of key terms related to institutional analysis, and section 3 deals with
some issues and constraints related to institutional change. Section 4 focuses on the concept of
integrated river basin management in a river basin context, and section 5 describes how the sitespecific activity components of the study are linked with institutional analysis in a river basin
context. Finally, section 6 provides some guidelines for undertaking the analysis of institutions
with a view to developing institutional strategies for improving the performance of agricultural
water management in the context of integrated water resources management.
1.2
Linkage with Study Objectives
The background to this document is a 3-year regional technical assistance study, launched in
1999 by the International Water Management Institute (IWMI), with financial support from the
Asian Development Bank. The study is being conducted in collaboration with local research
institutes and implementing agencies in five developing member countries (DMCs) of the Bank:
People’s Republic of China (PRC), Indonesia, Nepal, Philippines and Sri Lanka.
The overall purpose of the study is to improve the management of scarce water supplies for
agriculture in the participating DMCs, within and responsive to a framework for integrated water
resources management.
The specific objectives of the study are to assess the existing physical, social and institutional
situation associated with water resources within selected river basins in the five DMCs, and based
on that assessment, to develop and initiate the implementation of policies and institutional
1
strengthening programs that will lead to improved management of water resources used in
agriculture (details of study design and expected outcomes are given in section 4).
The study is implemented in a collaborative mode. The collaborating research institutes and
operating agencies in each country play an important role, not only in the successful completion
of the study activities, but also in developing increased awareness about the institutional changes
that are needed and the lessons from more developed countries that can be applied to solve their
institutional problems to achieve improved water management. Within this scope, the study was
designed to have five main activities:
?
development of a conceptual framework for analysis of policies, institutional arrangements,
functions and resource mobilization related to agricultural water management in the wider
context of integrated water resources management
?
case studies in, at least, two developed countries to identify key elements of successful water
resources management and provide lessons for transfer to the DMCs
?
in-depth institutional assessments and performance studies in five participating DMCs to
assess the strengths and weaknesses in policies and institutions responsible for agricultural
water management, identifying the major issues facing the countries and the opportunities to
meet the emerging challenges
?
preparation of action plans and processes in each participating DMC for implementation of
institutional, policy, and strategic improvements based on the findings of the in-depth
assessments
?
support for implementation of action plans for policy and institutional reform in the
participating DMCs
1.3
Further Development
This document, which focuses on the analysis of the institutional framework, is a partial
fulfillment of the first of the above-mentioned five tasks. A further elaboration of the contents of
this document will be made later to cover the management aspects, taking into account the final
outcomes of field studies, which are currently under way. The document, which builds on the
“Methodological Guidelines” issued during the study inception stage, is for the benefit of the
study groups in conducting the third task mentioned above, i.e., in-depth institutional assessments
in the five selected study sites.
2
2. INSTITUTIONS, ORGANIZATIONS AND MANAGEMENT
2.1
What are “Institutions” and “Organizations”?
Institutions and organizations are part of our daily life, and the two terms are so common in usage
that we have taken them for granted without realizing that they could have some distinct
meanings. In analyzing institutional arrangements in any context, a clear understanding of the
term “institutions” and how it is related to the term “organizations” is critically important, as
many different meanings have been given to this term, depending on where, by whom and for
what purpose it is used. A clarification of the two terms and their interaction is given below.
2.1.1
Need for Clarification
Even in its most popular usage, the term “institutions” seems to convey a narrow, and therefore
not entirely correct, interpretation. In this erroneous interpretation that is commonly used by
many, "institutions" are regarded only as "organizations." The connotation becomes much more
common in the use of the term "institution building," which most often refers to the building up of
new organizations (parastatal bodies, additional units in existing agencies, farmer organizations,
river-basin organizations, etc.).
Often, a preoccupation on organizational development tends to neglect the importance of laws
and policies that are necessary for effective organizational performance. This lapse seems to
account for the limited success so far achieved in establishing appropriately comprehensive and
effective institutional mechanisms for improved water management in many situations. Illustrative
of this limited achievement are the new organizational units, On-Farm Water Management
Directorates in Pakistan and the Irrigation Management Division in Sri Lanka, which did not
achieve desired results for lack of matching legal and policy support to integrate them into the
existing institutional framework.
The preferred emphasis on organizational structures and the apparent failure of this expansion
can be compared to an attempt to build and maintain physical structures without due attention on
the relevance of operational rules, maintenance specifications, and regulations for allocation of
water. Also, some selective organizational reforms are similar to piecemeal and ad hoc
modifications on old buildings with no relation to the conditions and technology under which they
were originally constructed.
To avoid developing and installing nominal institutional change, it is necessary to understand
the cohesiveness and the functioning of various elements of the existing institutional framework in
the contexts under study. It is necessary to distinguish between organizations and their underlying
institutions, so that a comprehensive analysis could be undertaken. If there are new performance
objectives that relate to changed physical, socioeconomic circumstances, what would be required is
a review and reform in both organizational structures and operational rules, evaluated in the context
of the wider institutional environment. Initially, therefore, it is useful to clarify the terms
“institutions” and “organizations.”
3
2.1.2
“Institutions” Defined
Consider the following list: Caste System, Marriage, Executive Presidency, Contract, The
Military, School, Hospital, Trade Union, Labor Laws, The World Bank, Exchange Control,
World Trade Organization, General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT), International
Water Management Institute, Mahaweli Authority Act and the Mahaweli (River Basin) Authority
of Sri Lanka. One common characteristic of the meanings conveyed by all of these words is that
they all serve to shape human interactions. They can all be referred to as institutions, but clearly,
only some of them are organizations.
In general sociology, an institution is “an organized, established, procedure” (Jepperson
1991). These procedures are represented as constituent rules of society, or “rules of the game.”
Primacy of institutions in sociology was seen when Durkheim called sociology the “science of
institutions.” A commentator on Weber suggested that “the theory of institutions is the
sociological counterpart of the theory of competition in economics” (Lachmann 1971:68). The
notion that an institution is a social order or pattern that has attained a certain state or property
implies that institutions serve the purpose of shaping and stabilizing human actions.
Institutional economics adopts a similar interpretation in which “institutions” are defined as
basically “the rules of the game in a society, or more formally, the humanly devised constraints
that shape human action” (North 1990:3). The institutions set the ground rules for resource use
and establish the incentives, information, and compulsions that guide economic outcomes.
Institutions can be both formal and informal. Apart from written laws, rules and procedures,
informally established procedures, norms, practices and patterns of behavior form part of the
institutional framework. After years of tradition, informal practices also become “rules” in their
own right, when they are accepted by the society. These formal and informal institutions define and
fashion the behavioral roles of individuals and groups in a given context of human interaction,
aiming at a specified set of objectives. The key characteristics of institutions are that “they are
patterns of norms and behaviors which persist because they are valued and useful” (Merrey 1993).
In many developing societies, informal rules have a tendency to override formal rules, making
the enforcement of formal rules very difficult and thereby affecting performance (Bandaragoda and
Firdousi 1992). While the coexistence of formal and informal institutions is inevitable, situations
where some informal rules tend to contradict formal rules are obviously dysfunctional. Also, it is
possible that, due to lack of proper enforcement or due to disregard towards the spirit of the written
laws, they become ineffective, and are replaced by a set of practices that show a divergence from
the declared laws, rules and regulations. These practices can be referred to as “rules-in-use” (see
section 5.1).
The emphasis on rules of human conduct in the definition given to “institutions” finds an
analogy in the set of rules and conventions governing any competitive sport, such as a game of
football. Basically the rules give a structure to the game and provide a basis as to how the game
should be played. The rules also include provisions for rule enforcement including penalties or
sanctions for violations, and sometimes, rewards for compliance. The rules also specify the layout
of the playground, the positions of various players, and the structure of the team. In this sense, the
4
“institutions” cover both the organization of the team of players and how they should play the
game.
Based on the definitions given above and the terminology used in practice, the institutions are
a combination of:
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
policies and objectives
laws, rules and regulations
organizations, their bylaws and core values
operational plans and procedures
incentive mechanisms
accountability mechanisms
norms, traditions, practices and customs
2.1.3
“Organizations” Defined
Organizations are defined as “networks of behavioral roles arranged into hierarchies to elicit desired
individual behavior and coordinated actions obeying a certain system of rules and procedures”
(Cernea 1987). A similar definition describes organizations as “structures of recognized and
accepted roles” (Merrey 1993:8). This hierarchical arrangement is popularly referred to as the
"organizational structure." Organizations are groups of individuals with defined roles and bound by
some common purpose and some rules and procedures to achieve set objectives. Like institutions,
organizations also shape human action.
North (1990:73) defines organizations as “purposive entities designed by their creators to
maximize wealth, income, or other objectives defined by the opportunities afforded by the
institutional structure of the society.” An example is the Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka (MASL),
which was created by the new government that came to power in 1977. The purpose was to harness
water and land resources in the Mahaweli river basin for the much needed food production and
employment generation, two strong political objectives at that time. As its value and usefulness
grew in the society, MASL gained acceptance and became an established organization.
For the purpose of our study, institutional analysis at this stage will focus on both the
underlying rule systems and the organizations as agents of institutional change.1 A broad
interpretation of the institutional framework as given in section 2.4 below will be the chosen
approach for this purpose, which will facilitate this needed focus. To be able to focus on the
suggested emphasis on institutional analysis, an important conceptual consideration is the
interaction between institutions and organizations, a brief outline of which is presented below.
1
A thorough organizational analysis to cover various water management agencies such as irrigation departments is beyond
the scope of this framework. Such a task would involve an analysis of leadership, motivation among organizational
members, their knowledge, skills and capacities and their value systems and preferences. Most of these aspects are directly
related to management functions, which can be addressed when action plans are considered by various stakeholder groups.
5
2.2
Interaction between Institutions and Organizations
2.2.1
Two Perceptions
The link between institutions and organizations can be seen in two ways.
One way is to perceive that how organizations come into existence and how they evolve are
fundamentally influenced by the institutional framework. For instance, the creation of irrigation
departments in many countries followed the enunciation of water-related policy, and the
enactment of irrigation ordinances. Similarly, international agreements have given rise to
multilateral organizations such as the UN or the World Bank. Thus, the two components,
institutions and organizations are intrinsically interlinked, and together, they provide a structure
for human interactions. Once established, the organizations, in turn, influence how the
institutional framework develops. For instance, the irrigation departments or other water-related
organizations sometimes try to assess changing social, economic, and more importantly, political
situations and adjust the institutional framework to suit the emerging demands. Similarly, since
the inception of the UN and the World Bank, they have proceeded to expand the institutional
framework for the international order.
The second perception of this link is that established organizations, which represent a set of
norms and behaviors that persists because they are valued and accepted as useful, are in fact
institutions. irrigation departments, water boards and well-established river-basin organizations,
such as MASL, are examples. An ad-hoc committee formed for a temporary task is not an
institution. Nor is a water user association formed by government officials for limited purposes
during the construction phase of a project. A water user association persisting over time and
continuing to fill a need that is valued and useful to its members can be seen as an institution, or
an “institutionalized” organization (Merrey 1993:9).
Either of these perceptions has one important consideration for our study, namely, the need to
consider the compatibility between existing laws, customs, policies and organizational
arrangements. Also, the value and usefulness of the existing institutional framework as accepted by
the stakeholder community need to be evaluated. Changes necessary for the institutional framework
can be formulated only on that basis.
According to both of these perceptions, some established organizations, which are part of the
water-related institutional framework can be seen as agents of institutional change. This is a very
important consideration in terms of our study. It may be possible to identify the extent to which
these organizations have played a role in fashioning the existing institutional framework.
Also, both in conducting an institutional analysis and in formulating recommendations for
change, the support of such influential organizations can be very useful. More importantly, the
real value of these organizations will be during implementation of identified institutional
strategies.
6
2.2.2
Functions of Institutions
The definitions given above highlight that the institutions are humanly devised “constraints” to
shape human action. However, the institutions inherently have dual facilities to both constrain and
liberate individual and group action (Bromley 1987). A good example is how the laws and the
courts system restrict some human actions, and also provide freedom for action in some other
instances. Like in the football analogy mentioned earlier, some laws restrict antisocial actions, and
some others enable productive actions and protect the innocent citizens.
The dual facilities of institutions are of particular importance in water management. Most
water-related rules are meant to constrain the socially undesirable behavior by individuals and
groups in the distribution and use of water. Basically, water allocation rules serve this purpose.
Some water-related institutions, such as those governing water user associations, are designed to
promote organized behavior and equity and provide various opportunities for individual and group
advancement, thereby serving to liberate human action.
The institutional framework serves to reduce the uncertainty of human actions, and thereby
they have a stabilizing effect on society. For example, established water allocation rules tend to
bring about equitable distribution of water, provided that these rules are applied along with other
related rules and norms, such as mechanisms to monitor water-delivery systems and laws relating
to violation of commonly accepted allocation practices.
Centrally imposed or externally mandated institutions are particularly meant to bring about
stability. Stabilizing effects of institutions can be seen in such instances. For example, many
multilateral institutions such as the United Nations (UN) and World Trade Organization (WTO)
build on, homogenize and reproduce standard expectations worldwide, thereby stabilizing
international order.
2.2.3
Role of Organizations in Effecting Change
The stabilizing effect of institutions mentioned in section 2.2.2 does not mean that institutions
themselves are not subject to change. As society and its priorities change, institutions
(conventions, codes of conduct, norms of behavior, laws, contracts) seem to evolve and
continually alter the choices available to the individual.
The cyclic phenomenon related to institutions, in which institutions are primarily determined by
human action, which once established, in turn, determine the scope and character of subsequent
human action for desired objectives, is an important consideration in analyzing institutions for
possible change. Particularly, the behavioral roles in an organization can surface the need for
changes. The analysis should be able to assess whether this need exists, whether it has already been
identified, and how an external facilitating role can be useful to identify and introduce change.
For instance, existing laws and procedures for sharing of water resources among the different
users in a river basin may not be adequate in terms of present circumstances. The extent and the
character of an observed gap between declared rules and rules-in-use will, together, be a good
indicator for institutional change.
7
An irrigation department established on the basis of an original set of procedures and rules,
and the behavior of water users whom it serves, may demonstrate the need for institutional
change. Usually, established organizations and their key members sometimes take the initiative to
change the existing institutions on the basis of identified needs, often based on their own
interests. This is an important consideration in formulating change.
2.3
Institutions and Management Performance
The linkage between institutions and performance is indisputable. But, how institutions contribute
to, or affect, performance is important to identify and assess the needs for institutional change
depending on the current levels of performance.
At the outset, it is useful to note that “institutional performance” is a misnomer. Institutions
being rules and role structures, practices and norms, do not perform, or effect any performance as
such. On the basis of the strength and validity of institutions, it is the management or the people
in an organization that actually effect performance and hence is the emphasis of our subtitle
above, “institutions and management performance.”
From an economist’s viewpoint, basically, institutions affect the performance of an
individual, group or organization, a country or its economy, through the effect of institutions on
the costs of exchange and production. Together with technology, the institutions determine the
transaction and transformation (production) costs (North 1990). Therefore, in a comparative
evaluation of two different sets of institutions, performance can be expected to be better in the
institutional framework, in which these transaction costs are less.
In institutional analysis, there is an essential need to conceptually differentiate the rules from
the players in an organization (North 1990:4). In the football analogy, while the rules define the
way the game has to be played, the objective of the team of players is basically to act according to
the rules and win the game. Similarly, the members of an organization have some defined
objectives, and they endeavor to achieve them by being within the institutional framework, and by
using a combination of extra-institutional factors, such as knowledge, skills, strategies and
coordination. These factors are related to management functions, which account for performance to
a larger extent than the institutions. The institutional framework serves as a necessary condition, but
not as a sufficient condition for management performance. A succinct definition by North (1990:4)
aptly refers to institutions as the “framework within which human interaction takes place.”
Human actions are constrained and protected by a nested system of different layers of
institutions. How management performance is circumscribed by this nested set of institutions is
illustrated in figure 1.
8
Figure 1. Nested institutions and management performance.
2.4
A Broad Definition of Institutions for This Study
Based on the discussion in the foregoing, and considering both the core meaning of the term
“institutions” which emphasizes on the rules aspect and the emphasis in popular usage of the term
associated with “organizations,” we may use a broad interpretation as given in box 1 for the
purpose of our current study. This interpretation covers all three important elements in the
institutional framework, namely policies, laws and organizations, and is similar to that adopted by
Saleth and Dinar (1999a and 1999b). It is particularly chosen for the study, because it is more
easily amenable to institutional analysis aimed at performance improvement.
9
Box 1. Interpretation of “institutions” adapted for the study.
Based on the above-mentioned concepts and definitions, the interpretation that is
suggested to be adapted for the purpose of this study is given below.
The institutional framework for water resources management in a river basin context
consists of established rules, norms, practices and organizations that provide a structure
to human actions related to water management. Notably, the established organizations are
to be considered here as a subset of institutions. For practical purposes, the overall
institutional framework is considered in three broad categories: policies, laws and
administration, all of which are related in some way to water resources management in a
river-basin context.
Policies:
National policies
Local government policies
Organizational policies
Laws:
Formal laws, rules and procedures
Informal rules, norms and practices
Internal rules of organizations
Administration: Organizations at policy level for resources management
Organizations at implementation level for delivery management
10
3. INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
IN A RIVER BASIN CONTEXT
3.1
Integrated Water Resources Management
Essentially, the concept of integrated water resources management needs to be linked to the
principles enunciated by the Dublin Conference on Water and the Environment (ICWE 1992) and
the famous Agenda 21 of the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro (UNCED 1992). The main
principles and concepts are given in box 2.
Box 2. Dublin principles and key concepts.
Principles
?
Water is a finite, vulnerable and essential resource, which should be managed in an
integrated manner.
?
Water resources development and management should be based on a participatory
approach, involving all relevant stakeholders.
?
Women play a central role in the provision, management and safeguarding of water.
?
Water has an economic value and should be recognized as an economic good, taking
into account affordability and equity criteria.
Key Concepts
?
Integrated water resources management, implying an inter-sectoral approach,
representation of all stakeholders, all physical aspects of water resources, and
sustainability and environmental considerations.
?
Sustainable development, which is sound socioeconomic development that safeguards the
resource base for future generations.
?
Emphasis on demand-driven and demand-oriented approaches.
?
Decision making at the lowest possible level.
Source: Savenije and van der Zaag 1998.
11
3.2
River Basin as Unit of Analysis
With the recognition of significant reuse of water, the river basin is increasingly acknowledged as
the appropriate unit for the analysis and management of water resources, especially as water
availability at the basin level becomes the primary constraint to agriculture. The growing scarcity
of good quality water in most river basins results in intense inter-sectoral competition for water.
The efficiency of irrigation water use can be seen in a more comprehensive manner, if the
allocation of water in a basin among various users is considered along with irrigation use.
Similarly, a more comprehensive analysis requires the study of the adverse effects of a rapid
degradation of the environment and other ecological problems arising from severe competition
for water along with the irrigation-induced environmental problems.
The neglect of such a wider consideration of the resource base has up to now clouded the
inherent limitations of existing institutional arrangements to deal with irrigation systems. As
countries experience growing water scarcity, water-sector institutions need to be reoriented to
cater to the needs of changing supply-demand and quality-quantity relationships and the emerging
realities (Saleth and Dinar 1999a). It is inevitable that the irrigated agriculture sector, the largest
water user in many river basins, will be called upon to reassess its water requirements in view of
the competition of water from other users.
Difficulties imposed by policy and institutional constraints at levels above farms and
irrigation systems are attributable to the failure in realizing the full benefits from many reforms
that have been attempted in irrigation management. There is now wide acceptance of the
necessity to focus on higher-level institutions, generally at the basin level. In Asia, this view was
reinforced at regional conferences sponsored by the Asian Development Bank in 1996 (see
Arriens et al. 1996).
A basin-level analysis also helps in distinguishing between two important aspects of
management: resource management at the macro level, and the service delivery management at
the system level. The institutional arrangements for these two aspects of management normally
have distinct emphases, and the two sets of functions need to be compatible with each other for
optimum level of water use efficiency and productivity.
In terms of institutional change, a basin perspective may bring about the much-needed
balance between the need for decentralization and the continued responsibilities of the center. The
recent trend has been to focus at the system and farm levels, and look for institutional changes at
that level such as water user associations to which part of the system management responsibility
was to be transferred. This trend tends to ignore some important areas of management concerns
related to the safety of dams, flood control, drought planning, ground water depletion and
environmental regulations (Perry 1999:49).
In a river basin, there can be a number of issues and problems whose solution can bring
common benefit through good governance, efficient and sustainable resource use and
environmental protection and security. These shared concerns can lead to “Communities of
Common Concerns,” or organized community groups in the basin area. For such groups to
become established, one important requirement is an enabling legal environment and a friendly
support policy and the law enforcement authorities.
12
In a genuinely participatory approach, outsiders can play only a facilitating role. Helping the
people to help themselves and reach a reasonable degree of stability and strength in community
participation is very often a time-consuming process. Their effective participation in resources
management, however, depends on the degree of their awareness of important technical
considerations.
Some of the ideas expressed in the Study Inception Report (15 June 1999), which explained
the validity of a river-basin perspective, are used here for recapitulation. Besides, they can now be
better interpreted in terms of study outcomes realized so far.
3.3
On-Site Gains and Off-Site Implications
The river basin as the geographical unit in which analyses are conducted defines an area where
various users of the basin’s water interact, and where most of them live. A basin perspective helps
to include in the analysis the interactions among various types of water uses and water users, and
in the process, it helps in better understanding the physical, environmental, social and economic
influences that impinge on the productivity of agricultural water management.
In a basin context, interrelated issues on both quantity and quality of surface water and
groundwater, and the extraction, use and disposal of water resources can be more
comprehensively analyzed. The participation of a larger number of stakeholders can be sought,
and water resources planning can be more effectively carried out. The broader view through a
river basin is able to capture dimensions, which are not normally included in an irrigation-system
management approach, such as the causes (and not only the effects) of water scarcity, water
quality, water-related disputes, and inequitable water distribution and use.
An integrated approach to water resources management in a river basin would enhance both
productivity and sustainability of natural resource use. Sustainability means that the concerns on
resource use should transcend beyond short term “on-site” gains, and should necessarily be on an
environmentally sensitive use of resources including many possible “off-site” implications. The
off-site influences on a water use system, as well as the off-site impacts arising from a water use
system, can both be systematically studied identify the factors that affect the performance of the
water use system. Figure 2 shows the linkages between these three water-related behavioral
patterns in an oversimplified river basin having a single water use system.
13
Figure 2. Schematic representation of a river-basin perspective.
Catchment Management
Deforestation
Mining, etc.
Industrial and Domestic Water Use
Upstream "Off-Site Influences"
100 Units (Primary Water)
Other
Inputs
"On-Site Activities"
Agricultural Water Management
Diverted
45
Units
55
Units
425 ha
Irrigation
Systems
Process Consumption
Non-beneficial Depletion
Rice Crop
Wheat Crop
Return Flow
17 Units
62
Units
Salinity
Water Pollution
Sedimentation
Downstream "Off-Site Impacts"
Sea
14
=
=
=
=
35
3
240 ha
185 ha
Direct
Outputs
In some of the river basin sites of this study, the complexity inherent in physical and social
relationships within a basin has already been surfaced. Development and management practices
of a single water use, a single segment of the community, or a single sector take place without
much reference to the needs and demands of other uses, people and sectors. Upstream power
companies tend to act independently with little regard to downstream agricultural water users;
deforestation in the catchment area of a storage facility disrupts the smooth operation of the
facility; head-end users take more water than necessary, thereby affecting tail-end users in a river
system.
Lack of understanding of the interdependencies of various human interventions within a river
basin results in inefficient use of resources, economic losses and environmental degradation.
3.4
Four Key Elements of the River-Basin Perspective
There are some key elements of the river basin approach that may be commonly applicable to all
basin locations. Four such key elements, as reflected in the Murray-Darling River Basin model
(Arriens et al. 1996:107) are mentioned below.
3.4.1
Appropriate Institutional Arrangements
Multiple groups manage and use water resources. Left to themselves, each group tends to give
priority to its own needs as coordinating mechanisms do not often exist in a sectoral treatment of
water. Consideration of all users and uses within a river basin facilitates the introduction of such
inter-sectoral coordination. Additionally, the stakeholders may collectively derive some synergic
benefit from being able to integrate their administrative efforts.
To derive some significant benefits from an integrated administrative effort, acceptable forms
of institutional arrangements (rules and roles) should be in place. The expected behavior by the
various stakeholders should be reflected in well-defined rights and responsibilities, as well as in
policies, laws and administrative structures and procedures. The stakeholders should be structured
through effective organizational and procedural arrangements so that each stakeholder group is
aware of its own (and others’) rights and responsibilities. The main objective should be to
coordinate effective planning and implementation of equitable, efficient and sustainable use of
natural resources in the basin with a view to improving the sustainability of its agricultural
development.
3.4.2
Reliable Information Base
For effective coordination and institutional performance, water resources management within the
basin must be essentially knowledge-driven. As the physical and social characteristics of a river
basin system are less conspicuous than in a more visible irrigation system, an effective
management effort in a river basin should necessarily rely on a sound database about the physical,
15
social, environmental, economic and institutional parameters of the basin. The different actors
and different sectors using land and water resources within the basin should be able to understand
and assess the requirements of one another, as well as the limitations imposed on each of them by
the overall environmental considerations.
In more practical terms, a basin approach to water resources planning, particularly aimed at
assessing the influences on agricultural water management, needs to be based on a number of key
sets of information related to the basin, which the study components seek to gather: present
conditions of the physical subsystem, availability of water and its quality, analysis of its social
subsystem including who uses water for what purposes, how the uses and users have been
organized and their binding rules, and current performance levels of the production systems.
3.4.3
Integrated Natural Resources Management in the Basin
In a river basin, a large number of individuals and groups are involved in using land, water and
environmental resources for different sectoral purposes. A basin approach in water resources
management helps to achieve an optimum level of integration among these various uses of
different natural resources. This integration encompasses a coordinated set of policies, rules and
regulations covering all natural resources within the basin, and also an effective coordination
among the organizations related to the management of all natural resources. For example, the land
laws should be in keeping with the laws related to the use of surface water and groundwater, and
the laws for environmental protection. A classic case which highlights this particular need for an
integrated approach in natural resources management is the traditional rivalry that often exists
between agriculture and irrigation functionaries, or between the power and agricultural sectors in
developing countries. A basin approach to natural resources management facilitates a concerted
effort in coordinating the resources use patterns within a river basin.
3.4.4
Strong Community Participation
Much more than in a single-objective irrigation system, the multiple water users with multipleobjectives in a river basin require a high degree of coordination in their efforts. The need for
greater coordination calls for greater participation in resources management from all of the water
users.
Issues related to local natural resources can usually be identified clearly and more easily by
the local community. A long-term association with the basin environment enables local people to
gain a very intimate knowledge about the natural phenomena and the related constraints on
resources use. Effective community participation leads to an adjustment in the existing power
relationships both within and outside the community. Participation brings about empowerment of
the people, enabling them to take their own decisions in an agreed framework of rules.
16
3.5
Why Focus on Institutional Framework in a River Basin Study?
To develop strategies for improving agricultural water management, the traditional approach
would be to study the irrigation agencies and water management practices. This study not only
evaluates other factors relevant to a river basin, but also specifically focuses on water
management institutions in a river basin context.
Institutions basically serve as instruments for human cooperation and for reducing uncertainty
by establishing a stable structure to human interaction (North 1990). In this sense, the study of
institutions related to river basin management is of special significance, as the most critical
element of integrated water resources management in a river basin is the need for coordination
among various human efforts to use the water available within the basin. Therefore, the most
fundamental aspect of institutional analysis in the context of river basins is to explore this
coordinating role of institutions.
3.5.1
Facilitates Conflict Resolution
In many river basin contexts, conflicts related to water allocation and management exist among
geographical units within the basin, among different water use sectors, and among water users
themselves within and outside each sector. A significant contribution of a basin-wide
organizational mechanism can be towards resolving such conflicts.
A critical constraint against effective river basin management is the commonly prevalent
conflict between boundaries of river basins and those of political units. In many instances, the
boundary of the political or administrative unit (such as the Nation, Province or District) is the
river course itself, whereas in some rare instances, it falls on the mountain ridge. In some other
instances, the boundary of the Country, Province or District is a man-made demarcation such as a
highway or a fence. In whatever form, when the difference in the boundaries creates a conflict in
decision making, invariably the greater emphasis is on the administrative or political boundary. In
such instances, a higher-level coordination mechanism is essential, although the effect can
sometimes be just nominal, as in the case of the Indus basin (covering a number of provinces
within Pakistan), or the Mekong basin (covering a number of nation states). In contrast, a basin
that falls within one administrative unit (e.g., Brantas in East Java, Indonesia) has a greater
potential for a smoother functioning basin management organization.
Boundary conflicts affecting river basin management can get accentuated when they occur in
countries involved in political reforms with devolution of power to lower-level units. If the unit of
devolution is the district, bypassing the higher-level province, as it may happen in Indonesia,
river basin management is likely to get more complicated due to more complex boundary
problems. In such instances, greater care needs to be taken in designing coordination
mechanisms.
Although the river basins selected for this study do not involve sharing of water by a number
of different nation states, they do cover a number administrative units. Therefore, it is useful to
see the parallel between transnational river basin institutions and the mechanisms developed for
local-level sharing of water in a river basin falling entirely within one country. As the Dublin
17
Report stated, the institutional arrangements for both should be based on the same principles
(ICWE 1992:40). With the current global trend towards devolution of power to smaller
communities, new political units are increasingly being created. As a result, the number of river
basins that need to be shared by two or more political units is increasing. Almost 40 percent of
the world’s population live in river basins shared by two or more countries (World Water Council
2000: v). The percentage of population living in river basins shared by two or more subnational
political units should be much more. Therefore, the need and the potential to establish viable and
acceptable institutional mechanisms for shared management of water resources in river basins are
vitally important.
3.5.2
Addresses Environmental Concerns
A study of institutions related to the basin would also help in understanding the extent to which
water resources management in the basin takes into account the environmental effects of
development. Adverse environmental effects go beyond the boundaries of water use sectors and
geographical units in the basin. Sectoral institutions usually restrict their attention on their own
requirements, and similarly different administrative units usually look after their own interests.
The degree of coordination among sectors and geographical units reflects on how much
environmental concerns are taken into account in the development and management of the river
basin. Therefore, one important strategy towards improving environmental protection is to focus
on basin-wide institutional mechanisms.
3.5.3
Corresponds to Historical Development
Every drop of water in a river is “liquid history.” It traces the path and the process of acquisition,
storage, conveyance and use of water within the river basin. Many such drops would have flowed
in a river for time immemorial. Therefore, how the basin itself has developed in terms of
technological and economic advancement would correspond to the institutional framework that
has developed over time in a basin. An understanding of the overall development process would
help in assessing how, and to what extent, the institutions have played a coordinating role to
promote human cooperation in various water-related activities within the basin.
As institutional development corresponds to historical water resources development
in the basin, institutional change tends to reflect the way in which the society and its
technology have evolved through time, and therefore, by studying the historical
development of a particular river basin we may explore the extent of institutional change
that has taken place over time. If the institutional change has been lagging, this may
indicate the potential for further change that may be possible and necessary in view of the
changes that have occurred in the socioeconomic and technical environment of the basin.
For this purpose, at least a short historical sketch of basin development in each study site
has been recommended to understand who did what, and for what purpose.
18
3.6
Institutional Environment of a River Basin
Five main external factors can be identified as either constraints or enabling situations that affect
the water management institutions in a river basin. The overall political system, national
economic policies, legal framework, socioeconomic environment and the physical resource base
are these external influences.
For instance, the overall national policies play a significant role in fashioning the institutional
framework for any given social context. Box 3 relates a story on how a broad policy could affect
a simple rule related to water management. It also shows how it tends to be circumvented by
other economic policies in the same country.
Box 3.
Effect of Overall Policy Environment.
Before Energy Policy Act of 1992, most toilets used 3.5 gallons of water per flush. After
1994, when regulations were first enforced, toilets were limited to 1.6 gallons per flush.
Comparing total water use:
Homes with 3.5-gallon-flush toilets used 20 gallons for the toilet, and 73 gallons daily.
Homes with 1.6-gallon-flush toilets used 10 gallons for the toilet, and 50 gallons daily.
Although US law prohibits the production of toilets that use more than 1.6 gallons of water
per flush, there is a loophole. American manufacturers can still make high-flush toilets for
sale outside the USA. Americans legally buy and import them!
Source: Research by Hillary Wasson, reported in USA Today of 2 June 2000.
Similarly, the overall legal framework and the general “law and order” situation in a country,
particularly the social conditions that determine how the laws and rules are applied and
adjudicated have a significant effect on water management institutions.
In some instances, the culture, traditions and practices inhibit the effective functioning of
water management institutions, whereas, in some other instances, they tend to promote them. In
order to assess the actual impact of these external influences, it is useful to have an understanding
about the social conditions, traditions and practices in the given context.
Figure 3 shows the conceptual framework underlying the water-related institutions in a river
basin.
19
Figure 3. Institutional environment of a river basin.
EXTRANEOUS FACTORS
AFFECTING RIVER-BASIN
WATER MANAGEMENT
AND INSTITUTIONS
INSTITUTIONS GOVERNING
RIVER-BASIN WATER
MANAGEMENT
Political System
Water Policy
Water Law
National Economic Policies
Water-Related Organizations
Internal Rules
Operational Rules
Rules-in-Use
Water Allocation Practices
Legal Framework
Social Conditions
Culture, Traditions and
Practices
Physical System and Resource
Base
Resources Management
Service Delivery Management
Performance in Terms of
Productivity, Equity and
Sustainability
(To be assessed using indicators)
20
4. STUDY COMPONENTS LEADING TO INSTITUTIONAL
ANALYSIS
4.1
Study Design for Institutional Assessment
As highlighted in section 1.2, the main objective of country-based studies is basically twofold.
First, the field studies in the five countries are expected to identify the relationships between
physical and socioeconomic characteristics of selected river basins 2 and their existing institutional
arrangements. Second, based on this diagnostic information, possible institutional changes are to
be identified for improving the management of water available for agriculture in the context of
integrated water resources management in river basins.
In the Methodological Guidelines, six key research questions were mentioned as relevant in a
search for appropriate institutional strategies in given contexts:
?
What is the hydrological resource endowment of the river basin?
?
Who are the present users of water, and what are the present patterns of water use
differentiated by sector, public and private uses, gender, and income level?
?
What are the formal and informal institutional arrangements for sharing water between uses
within the basin and what provisions (or potential) exist for satisfying the unmet water needs
of disadvantaged groups, such as women, children and the poor?
?
How do the present formal and informal arrangements for allocating and managing water
between uses affect equity and productivity of agricultural water use within the river basin?
?
What is the nature of conflicts between uses and the means for conflict resolution within the
basin?
?
What can we say about the future trends and scenarios, with special reference to the future of
irrigated agriculture and access to water resources by poor women and men?
Considering the river basin as the unit of analysis places the emphasis of research at a plane
higher than that of the traditional irrigation system management focus and facilitates the concerns
to shift towards overall water policy and integrated water resources management. This ideological
2
Although a river basin is typically defined as the entire geographical area from which water drains to the point at
which the river flows to a sink (i.e., the sea), for purposes of this study, this definition was adapted to mean the entirety
of such a river basin or a part of a basin (subbasin) defined by the location of its stakeholders who have an interest in
one or more particular water management problems and who have the ability to address them.
21
stance helps to capture the effects of growing inter-sectoral competition for increasingly scarce
water resources.
The country studies aim to assess the degree of their temporal and spatial scarcity of water
and competition from all the water use sectors, and actively participate in finding solutions to
improve agricultural water management. The study design also enables the important research
and policy considerations on water quality, resource depletion and degradation and the
environment.
The collaborative study activities in the five selected countries are aimed at improving the
management of their scarce water supplies for sustainable agriculture, within the constraints of
competition for water by other sectors and water-use-related environmental problems. The
physical and social diagnostic analyses will help in evaluating the existing institutional
framework, as well as in formulating institutional change. The diagnostic analysis on the
performance of irrigated agriculture will help the development and initiation of appropriate action
plans to address the identified constraints against agricultural water management.
The five countries are in varying degrees of water resources development and related
institutional development. They are also at different levels of water management performance.
The country studies will identify the distinct features in each of the selected water basins in the
five countries, and assess the issues and constraints in the context of their respective national and
regional water policies. The studies in the five countries will also add to the institutional reform
processes already launched in some of these countries, and will provide an impetus for reform in
the others. The studies will also contribute to the Asian Development Bank’s initiatives in
promoting national water policies.
Although the five study components are separate activities, they are all related to
socioeconomic relationships of the stakeholders associated with the basin’s water resources. To
this extent, the components are interrelated and, in turn, are linked to the final study goal of
improving the productivity of agricultural water management in the basin (see figure 4). The
usefulness of studying contextual factors in each selected river basin for a final institutional
analysis is further explained in sections 4.2–4.5.
22
Figure 4. Study components aimed at developing institutions for improved agricultural water management in a river-basin context.
Physical System
? Infrastructure
? Sources of water
? Water quality
? Drainage
? Topology
? Soil conditions
Water Accounting
? Basin maps
? Rainfall
? Groundwater
? Inflow
? Diversions
? Committed water
? Outflow
Developing Effective
Institutions for
Improved Agricultural
Water Management
Socioeconomic Situation
? Water users and their families
? Other stakeholders and their
families
? Incomes, taxes, water charges
? Prices
? Subsidies
Existing Institutional
Framework
? Existing water-related
organizations
? Interactions among them and
their functions
? Existing water laws and
policies
Performance
? Assessment criteria
? Inputs
? Processes
? Outputs
? Impacts
23
4.2
Physical System and Institutions
Presenting a river-basin perspective for water development, G. F. White has once noted that “if
there is any conclusion that springs from a comparative study of river systems, it is that no two
are the same” (White 1957).
The topology, soil conditions, climate and rainfall, geographical location and natural
vegetation all combine to distinguish one river basin from another. Closely related to these
natural features are the man-made infrastructure for harnessing water resources from the river
system to develop natural resources within the basin. In addition to the natural features of the
basin, the characteristics of infrastructure, such as size and scale, technology, and purpose tend to
determine the type and character of institutions established for water resources management. In
effect, the physical system of the river basin mirrors the institutional arrangements.
A good illustration of this relationship is the canal irrigation system in the Indus basin and its
institutional arrangement for water management. The flat terrain of the basin makes storage
difficult and requires that the system is a run-of-river diversion in a contiguous canal system. At
the tertiary level, there is continuous water flow along the watercourses and the structure at the
head of the watercourse is so designed to allow for automatic proportional distribution of water
into the watercourses. This physical system is matched by a water allocation system in the form
of a rotation based on time-turn, popularly known as warabandi, which is self-policing and meant
to share water scarcity equally among all the water users in the watercourse command area.
Basically, the system is geared for minimum management and control, which also reflects the
need to cater to a system of very long canals and a vast command area. Also, it reflects the social
and economic characteristics of the water user community.
4.3
Water Accounting and Institutional Analysis
If a river basin is defined as the entire geographical area from which water drains to the point at
which the river flows to a sink (lake or sea) then the amount of water in a given river basin in
typical years should be a constant. The only exception would be if there are man-made facilities
for interbasin transfers of water. Historically therefore, the variable phenomenon within a river
basin is the water use through human interventions. As mentioned earlier, as the population
increases, and as the technology and social behavior change over time, the pattern of water use
also changes. The main purpose of the water accounting activity is to assess this pattern of water
use at a given point of time, and over a period of time. Water accounting is something more than
calculating a water balance. To put it simply, it is accounting for water resources in the river
basin, to understand how much water is approximately received by the basin, and how, how much
and for what purposes this amount of water is used. The proportion of water that is (purposively)
used for beneficial purposes directly corresponds to the intensity and efficacy of water
management institutions, and the nature of this water use corresponds to the character and quality
of the institutions.
24
4.4
Socioeconomic Situation and Institutions
As the population increases, interregional migration and rate of urbanization also tend to increase.
In a consumer-oriented society, competitive demands for water for various purposes in a river
basin (industries, drinking and domestic, and environmental protection) gradually increase. These
increased demands are bound to clash with the traditional interests of agricultural water use, and
related institutions. The process of urbanization and modernization (development) accompanies
new technologies and they, in turn, cause social change. Together, these socio-technical changes
call for changes in the existing institutions.
A good example is how the traditional water allocation principle of “prior appropriation,” as
in Colorado State in USA (Moore, Phillips and Powers 1994), has been threatened by the new
demands for water, accompanied by some technical innovations. Remote data collection through
telemetry networks and automated control systems provide managers with “real-time”
information about water supply and demand and help them to fine-tune their methods of using
water efficiently. As part of this technological advancement, “demand-tailored” water deliveries
are possible, and the result is a tendency towards developing new agreements to reapportion
surplus water. At the same time, other nontraditional water uses, such as power, municipal and
industrial supply, flood control, navigation, fish and wildlife, and recreational purposes press for
their water rights through various lobbies and legal instruments. State laws are supplemented by
Federal laws and Supreme Court decisions. For instance, the preservation of minimum
streamflows is now part of the “public trust” doctrine of USA. The term, “beneficial use” is being
defined as “greatest good for the greatest number.” Another strange form of flexibility is
emerging as a result of “parallelism and conflicts in laws.” The point is that a change from the
traditional “first user–first right” to a new institutional framework is now possible because of
innovative technological support to use water more efficiently, and the accompanying changes in
social attitudes towards sharing of water.
The lesson that can be learnt from this experience is that there is a need to understand in any
context the changes (or the potential for change) in terms of the technology of water management
and the related social change that may have occurred in the recent past. This understanding will
help in determining the extent of change that can be incorporated into the existing institutional
framework for water management.
Experience in the Omonogawa river basin in Japan provides another example of how new
technology has combined with the existing institutional framework to solve a recurrent problem.
Using the tradition of Land Improvement Districts, which was sufficiently adaptable, new
technology was deployed to develop the basin with diverted water from the river through new
canal systems. This basin development has played a significant role in reducing the frequency and
the effect of droughts and floods in the area. Storage of diverted water serves to regulate flows
and make water available on a more uniform basis throughout the basin. New technology has
added automated control systems to the traditional LID procedures for better water resources
management.
25
4.5
Performance Assessment and Institutional Analysis
The study component on performance assessment is designed to be limited to irrigated agriculture
within the selected river basin. This decision was taken at the inception of the study, so that the
available study resources would be best spent by focusing on the basin-wide influences on the
major water use and the productivity of agricultural water management. Although this strategy
agrees with the Terms of Reference of the Study as well, the study is still designed to assess the
need for coordination mechanisms in the institutional framework that would eventually contribute
to improved productivity of agricultural water management.
Once the current performance levels of irrigated agriculture are assessed (following the
indicators given in the Methodological Guidelines), the influence of the existing institutional
arrangements on the production processes are to be identified.
As explained in section in 2.3 above, the study design considers that the institutional
framework is a necessary condition for entrepreneurs or members of an organization to perform
in the pursuit of their objectives subject to leadership and coordination provided by management.
So far as this document has presented, its main focus is on the institutional arrangements, and
stops short of proceeding to assess the efficiency of management functions. The main task at this
stage of the study is to evaluate whether the existing institutional framework negatively
constrains the performance of management tasks.
4.6
Institutional Analysis for an Action Plan
In the process of studying these different aspects, the study groups have an opportunity to
understand the site-specific and country-specific institutional environments and their influence on
developing and implementing new institutional strategies aimed at improved agricultural water
management. As the study progresses, the study teams are expected to develop draft reports on
these components. Figure 5 shows the linkages between these various contextual aspects and their
study outputs, including how they are all leading to a final institutional analysis and a related
action plan.
In sum, the diagnostic phase of the study provides an appreciation of the whole river basin, its
physical and socioeconomic characteristics and its current performance levels. Along with these
aspects, all forms of institutions related to water resources development and management within
the selected river basin are identified. Performance of the management system should be assessed
in relation to this existing institutional framework. After areas for performance improvement and
the scope of possible improvements are identified, institutional analysis can be carried out to
identify improvements to be effected to the existing institutional framework.
26
Figure 5. Main study activities and outputs.
Identification of Physical
Characteristics of the River
Basin
Inventory of Physical
Infrastructure
Water Accounting in the River
Basin
River-Basin Profile and
Resource Endowment
Report
Socioeconomic Survey,
Assessment of Existing
Institutional Framework, and
Stakeholder Analysis
Report on Stakeholders’
Participation and
Socioeconomic Situation
Performance Assessment of
Irrigation Systems in the River
Basin
Report on
Performance
Report on a New
Institutional Framework
Institutional
Analysis
Action Plan
27
5. HINTS FOR FORMULATING INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE
It is useful for us to appreciate some important issues and constraints related to institutional
change. Such an appreciation would help the analysts to identify the effects of these issues and
constraints in the given context, and explore how best these constraints can be overcome in an
attempt to formulate and introduce change.
5.1
“Rules-in-Use”
In analyzing the institutional framework, it is useful to realize that declared rules, or formal
institutions, can change in character in their actual use in the given context. Forces of tradition, such
as feudalism, caste and kinship have a greater influence on people's lives than the written codes of
law. The difference between declared rules and rules-in-use is an important consideration for
evaluating institutional arrangements for water management, which is a field in which social
relationships play a significant role. In fact, some analysts of irrigation institutions have defined
institutions as the “rules-in-use” (Ostrom 1992), as they are more commonly acceptable than the
declared rules.
Depending on the socioeconomic context, the formal institutions designed to govern human
conduct in an orderly manner can give way to a flexible and adjustable set of rules. For instance, a
recent study in a sample of twenty-two watercourses in Pakistan’s Punjab did not find a single
official warabandi water allocation schedule in practice as originally designed (Bandaragoda and
Rehman 1995).
The importance of understanding rules-in use as against declared rules in water management lies
in the complex nature of the rural society itself, which is closely associated with water management.
For example, farmers are not a homogeneous group. Different groups of farmers (large, small, rich,
poor) have different sets of goals and objectives, and different alliances. The value attached to formal
rules by this heterogeneous group depends on their varying objectives and backgrounds, and over
time, the rule-in-use becomes what the majority has modified and accepted.
5.2
Rule Enforcement
In terms of the transaction cost theory, the functioning of institutions depends on the costliness of
enforcement (North 1990:4). The gap between the declared rules and the rules-in-use is also
basically a result of the laxity in rule application and enforcement, which may well be due to the
higher cost of enforcement. Therefore, in institutional analysis, there is a need to look into the
enforceability of existing formal rules. Based on such information, consideration can be given to
enforcement and related costs in the formulation of new institutions.
28
5.3
Role of the Elite in Institutional Development
Some analysts attach considerable value to power and politics in establishing, maintaining, and
changing institutions. For instance, Arthur Stinchcombe in his book Constructing Social Theories
defined an institution as “a structure in which powerful people are committed to some value or
interest” (Powell and DiMaggio 1991:191).
Normally, in many countries, policies, and institutions based on policies, are established by
the influence of a few elite, either among professionals, or among powerful political leaders, or of
a combination of both. Once established, the institutional framework becomes useful for
maintaining or expanding their power base, or perpetuating their interests. Classic examples are
from the international order, the power implications of the UN system or other similar
multilateral institutional arrangements like GATT or World Trade Organization. Much less
visible examples are plenty in the national political and administrative arena in any country,
including the way the political parties are established and developed, and how resource allocation
is effected.
Lobby groups are invariably related to the various power blocks, which bring to bear their
influence in creating the so called “public opinion.” Imposition and releasing of many forms of
control or concession stem from some interest group or other. Who eventually succeeds in
establishing norms or practices would depend on which group has greater political power. The
validity of this argument is very much relevant to our efforts in analyzing and developing
effective water management institutions within a river basin.
The analysis should therefore essentially explore the role of influential persons and groups in
shaping the existing institutional framework by, first, exploring the possible power implications
of its existence. This knowledge would help in taking due care to ensure that more democratic
and participatory approaches are deployed to reduce inequity in future action plans.
With this reality in view, at least an awareness can be built to help in formulating practical
and realistic modifications to the existing institutions.
5.4
Difficulty in Effecting Institutional Change
Despite the dynamic nature of institutions, purposively effecting institutional change is not easy.
The main reason for this difficulty is the stability of well-established institutions, which are in
equilibrium at any given point of time.
Various institutional components are intrinsically interlinked; like planets and stars in a solar
system, they are in some dynamic form of balance or equilibrium. Policies on agriculture and water,
including those on subsidies, trade, rural industries and land reform; the legal system covering land
and water resources management; and various organizations set up to implement projects and
programs are some of these interlinked institutional elements. In the context of water resources
management for agriculture, these linkages are crossing the boundaries of various categories and
groups of people, adding to the complexity. For instance, some farmers are more closely linked with
agency staff than with the farming community; people shift their political alliances when their
29
leaders change parties. Politicians from rural electorates may have an urban bias in their policy
preferences.
Thus, a particular element of institutions is so deeply embedded in a network of such similar
elements and networks of relationships that an intended change in one institutional element
involves corresponding reactions from other elements in the network. This difficulty of change
inherent in institutions explains why some institutions remain in practice or in the statute book,
despite its obsolescence or its counterproductive nature.
Rules-in-use (section 5.1) are more difficult to change. A case in point is the difficulty in
changing a particular cropping pattern or calendar that has been in practice for some time. While
formal rules on equitable water allocation may exist in the rule book, farmers may have been
accustomed to flexible water distribution. Dislodging a well-established practice such as free
riding by the head-end water users in a canal system has not been proved easy in many places. To
change them by a mere regulation or new structure is simply impossible. A greater chance of a
change may exist if the change covers a wider area of practices, procedures or structures, such as
those meant for water measurement, water delivery, equitable distribution of water, and even
broader policy areas aimed at distribution of productive assets and ensuring accountability.
Similarly, it is equally difficult to introduce some useful institutional element even if the
majority accepts it. The major reason for this is the cost of introducing change through a
multitude of agencies and their procedures. In either of these cases, two countervailing forces act
against change in the existing institutional framework. One is the common interconnectedness of
many institutional elements, some of which may have substantial value to the society at large
where the overall cost of a change is more than its apparent “direct” cost. The other is the
procedural constraints in the introduction of change, including the popularly known “resistance to
change” (even to change the name of an established organization is much more difficult than
usually expected).
Both these aspects coincide in what North (1990: Chapter 4) describes as “transaction costs”
of exchange, the key to which is presented as the costliness of information, and processing
information. The daunting aspect of this explanation is that transaction costs are increasing;
within a century, the proportion of the US national economy devoted to transacting has increased
from 25 percent to 45 percent. Many other countries may have similar experience in escalating
transaction costs.
Institutions typically change incrementally rather than in discontinuous fashion (North
1990:6). Even if some quick change is anticipated by a new policy or law, it is fairly common that
the society adopts it slowly. The main reason for this incremental change is that there are many
institutional elements which are interconnected, and a change gets cushioned by many other
established institutional elements.
5.5
Replicability of Success Stories
The design of the regional study presupposes that lessons can be learnt from developed country
experiences of successful institutional development. With this possibility in view, the study
proceeds to develop case studies of advanced river basins. However, attempts at replication or
30
transplanting of institutional models have not been very successful in some of the countries under
study (e.g., Sri Lanka, Philippines). It is therefore useful to understand whether there are special
conditions under which such attempts could be successful. There is a need to analyze the local
situations in that light to explore whether they could absorb some identified lessons from
elsewhere, to make the local institutional framework more effective in achieving improved
integrated water resources management within river basins.
Experience suggests that transfer of institutional models is not easy. Hunt (1999) found in an
analysis of conditions in Australia and neighboring Solomon Islands that “direct transposition of
user pays policy was not sustainably viable.” His analysis included a number of contextual factors
that seemed to sharply vary in effect in the two contexts: political structure, stability of national
priorities, living standards, technical development levels, literacy levels, financial management
and infrastructure development levels. More importantly, change management in the developing
countries was seen as so volatile that a developed country policy or institutional model would not
have a chance of gaining root in an extreme instance of change management.
A similar study involving the possibility of transferring the river-basin management model in
Australia to Vietnam concluded that the hydrological and socioeconomic contexts would be the
major determinant of the transferability (Malano, Bryant and Turral 1996). While general
principles of good allocation and rational water resources management are transferable from one
context to another, no package or formula in doing so is viable. This study also found that even in
Australia, the two political units, New South Wales and Victoria had two different paths of
institutional development, though within the same Murray-Darling river basin, implying that
local-level conditions and initiatives for change are vital in establishing new policies and
institutions for water resources management. A study of the socioeconomic and hydrological
context in a given river basin is, therefore, essential to identify the suitable strategies for
absorbing even general principles from other situations.
However, despite the contextual differences in river basins, White (1977) has acknowledged
that developing countries, which have special problems of water management, should be able to
“profit from the lessons learned in the nations which have made heavier investments in
engineering work.” In a more recent study of comparing river-basin-development experiences in
the Mississippi and the Mekong, the conclusion was that both these large basins were having the
same challenge of sustaining the ecological integrity of the basin, and that Mekong could learn
some lessons from the Mississippi’s longer development experience (Jacobs 1999).
5.6
Participatory Approach to Institutional Change
5.6.1
Institutional Adaptation
In view of difficulties in the transposition of institutional models from one context to another, the
suggested approach is “institutional adaptation.” This method assumes that the contextual factors
assessed during the initial diagnostic phase of the study would form the foundation for analyzing
the necessary institutional arrangements for improving agricultural water management in the
context of integrated water management within the selected river basin. The method also assumes
31
that a participatory approach involving all of the stakeholder groups through a series of
consultation meetings would be the best way of developing appropriate institutional strategies.
The outcome of these interventions would be an adaptation of the existing institutional
framework to accommodate the identified needs for improvement, rather than the total
transposition of an institutional framework that exists, and works well, elsewhere. Lessons from
success stories elsewhere will only be used in the needs identification, which too is to be
collectively effected by the local stakeholder groups.
5.6.2
Value of Stakeholder Participation
The advantage of participation by user groups and other stakeholders would be the facility in
identifying appropriate institutional measures for effectively attending to a number of resource
management needs: arresting free-rider behavior among the members, mobilizing the needed
financial and labor resources, imposing sanctions on individual members for resource
degradation, providing incentives for resource saving, interacting with the government and other
individuals and organizations such as suppliers, contractors and purchasers of produce, and
developing and implementing group decisions for equitable resource distribution and
environmental protection.
5.6.3
Role of Facilitators
With this suggested approach, the value of research and expert advice becomes an issue. To what
extent can research guide a group of stakeholders in policy-oriented decisions? An apt reply
came in the form of recommendations at the end of the UNESCO World Conference on Science,
the main thrust being that public participation would certainly serve to extract the best of lessons
and advice (see box 4).
In a genuinely participatory approach, outsiders can play only a facilitating role. Helping the
people to help themselves and reach a reasonable degree of stability and strength in community
participation is very often a time-consuming process. Their effective participation in resource
management, however, depends on the degree of their awareness of important technical
considerations. Social organization to establish manageable groups within the community helps
not only in bringing about this required awareness through various capacity building measures,
but also in developing capability for collective action through effective participation.
A facilitating role by experts will also include capacity building among the stakeholder
groups to understand and appreciate the main principles of integrated water resources
management in the context of a river basin, and the capability for performing essential
management tasks.
32
Box 4. Declaration of the international conference on Participatory Processes in Water
Management (PPWM): Satellite conference to UNESCO’s World Conference on Science,
Budapest, Hungary, June 1999.
“Science is a necessary but insufficient basis for public policy decisions. Science informs
policy decisions by providing the factual basis upon which decisions can be made, and
alerts decision makers to the degrees of certainty or uncertainty associated with these
facts. But decisions about public policy inevitably involve choices among competing
visions of the kinds of societies in which we want to live.
“Public participation is a precondition for social acceptance of public policy decisions.
Public participation informs public policy decisions with the goals and aspirations of those
people who believe themselves or their societies to be affected by these decisions.
Participation is a process of mutual education amongst the public, scientists, and decision
makers about public concerns, the factual basis for the decision, and the process of
decision making itself. The transparency of the process deepens the trust between the
public and policy makers, and also the trust between the public and the scientific
community.
“Public participation must meet the following requirements before it will ensure legitimacy
and credibility for science decisions:
1. The public should have a say in decisions about actions that affect their lives;
2. Public participation includes the promise that the public’s contribution will influence
the decision;
3. The public participation process is effective if it (a) actively seeks out and facilitates
the involvement of those potentially affected at all levels of society, (b) provides
participants with the information they need to participate meaningfully, and (c) creates
a forum for discourse and interaction with others who are potentially affected, with the
scientific community and policy decision makers.
“Public participation is a catalyst for more responsive governance. The conference
concluded that public participation is an essential precursor for sustainability of both the
environment and civil society.”
Source: Water International 1999.
33
6. GUIDELINES FOR INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS
This section outlines some guidelines for proceeding to institutional analysis based on the
foregoing. Particularly, the conceptual background on institutions, organizations and management
performance outlined in section 2 and the river-basin perspective of integrated water resources
management outlined in section 3, and the chosen definition of institutions referred to in section
2.4 will form the basis of these brief guidelines.
The analysis of diagnostic study components given in section 4 and the hints for institutional
change outlined in section 5 are meant to supplement these guidelines.
6.1
Main Components of Water Institutions
The definition adopted for our study is given in box 1 in section 2.4 of this document.
Accordingly, following the analysis of Saleth and Dinar (1999a; 1999b), the water management
institutions are categorized into three main components: water policies, water laws, and water
administration. These components include most of the institutional aspects referred to in section
2. The categorization of key elements is as given in box 5, which is adapted from Saleth and
Dinar 1999b.
Box 5. Water-related institutions.
Water Law
?
Legal coverage of water and related resources
?
Water rights
?
Provisions for conflict resolution
?
Provisions for accountability
?
Scope for public/private sector participation
?
Centralized regulatory mechanisms
?
Integration of overall legal framework with water law
Water Policy
?
Project selection criteria
?
Pricing and cost recovery
?
Water allocation and transfers
?
Economic participation
?
User participation
?
Linkages with other economic policies
Water Administration
?
Formal organizations
?
Organizational procedures
?
Pricing, finance and accountability mechanisms
?
Information, research and extension systems
34
Some of the institutional aspects seem to belong to more than one category. This is so
because there are close linkages between the three components. For example, water law usually
empowers water policy, and water policy, in turn, could initiate a process for a new water law.
The two components enrich each other. Together they define the structure for the functioning of
water administration. The interlinkages of the three institutional components in terms of
resources, social capacities, and overall economic objectives can be seen in figure 6, which is
extracted from Saleth and Dinar 1999b.
Figure 6. Interlinkages among institutional components (adapted from Saleth and Dinar 1999b).
Water Law
Water Policy
Water Rights
Conflict Management
Accountability
Responsibility
Stakeholder Participation
Integrated Natural Resources Management
Use Priority
Project Selection
Cost Recovery
Water Transfers
Decentralization
Technology Policy
Water Administration
Government Intervention
Organizational Structure
Human Resources
Finance
Fee Collection
Regulation
Information Management
6.2
Classical Temple Metaphor of Institutional Analysis
The metaphor of the classical temple is an appropriate illustration of the combination of
principles, processes and activities involved in this suggested method of institutional analysis
based on the chosen definition of the institutional framework. Figure 7 depicts this metaphor as
adapted from its use by Savenije and van der Zaag (1998). The framework rests on the foundation
of diagnostic studies and supported by three pillars of key institutional areas.
35
Figure 7. The classical temple metaphor indicating river basin institutional development.
The four study components conducted in each river basin comprise the foundation for the
analysis. Although they are mostly in noninstitutional aspects of the basin, as discussed in section
4, each component can be related to the institutional framework of the basin. Steps 1–3
mentioned above will accomplish the work envisaged for this foundation.
6.3
Three Pillars of Institutional Analysis
Following the definition adopted in section 2.4, Laws, Policies and Administration are the three
pillars of the institutional framework for integrated water resources management in a river-basin
context. They are very broad categories of institutional elements, and each category, as illustrated
in box 5, can consist of a number of institutional elements.
6.3.1
The Pillar of Laws
The legal framework is a very complex set of enactments, subsidiary laws, rules, regulations and
procedures, and rights, customs and practices. They are also divided in terms of sources, such as
36
national, local and village-level assemblies. There can be laws affecting water management, and
laws directly related to water management. The activity that may have been already accomplished
during the diagnostic phase could be the inventorying of these legal elements. At this stage of the
analysis, each element can be evaluated according to the procedure given in sections 6.3 and 6.4.
6.3.2
The Pillar of Policies
Policies are also determined by a number of actors at national, local or organizational level.
Usually, policies and laws are interlinked at the sources, as well as at the implementation level. In
some countries, a water policy has already been established, and they are in the process of
formulating laws to implement them. In the analysis, the elements of this policy framework
should be subjected to closer scrutiny in terms of the procedure indicated in sections 6.3 and 6.4.
6.3.3. The Pillar of Administration
Administration here means the organizations involved in water management and their internal
rules. The process of management is not included. The organizations are necessary for two levels:
resource management and delivery management (see section 6.5). The evaluation of these
organizational elements needs to be conducted in terms of procedures indicated in sections 6.3
and 6.4 to explore their effectiveness to undertake coordination among various water use sectors
in the river basin, data collection and processing for monitoring purposes, application of water
rights, and enforcing various rules related to water management within the river basin.
6.4
Suggested Method for Institutional Analysis
The methodological steps that are suggested to be taken in analyzing institutions on the basis of
study activities already undertaken are shown in figure 8, which gives a simple flow chart to
depict the interrelationships among the steps.
37
Figure 8. Steps in institutional analysis.
(1)
Evaluate results from
the diagnostic study
components
(2)
Conduct trend analysis
to trace historical
development
(3)
Trace the
development of
institutions in the
basin
(5)
Assess adequacy and
appropriateness of
existing institutions
(4)
Evaluate institutional
implications of current
performance
(6)
Identify possible
institutional changes
A brief description of each of the six steps is given below:
1. Evaluate the results from four diagnostic study components conducted in the basin (Physical
System, Water Accounting, Socioeconomic Situation, and Performance Assessment) to
identify institutional implications arising from them.
2. Conduct trend analyses in water availability, water use, infrastructure development and
agricultural and irrigation performance to trace the historical development of the river basin.
3. Trace the development of the existing institutional framework related to water management
in the basin and compare it with the physical development of the basin over time.
4. Evaluate the institutional implications of current performance levels, to identify key areas of
policies, laws and organizational arrangements, which may need to be improved for improved
performance.
38
5. Assess the adequacy and the appropriateness of each key element in the existing institutional
framework with reference to steps 1 to 4 above.
6. Identify possible institutional changes.
Some of these steps have already been accomplished in conducting the diagnostic study
components in the selected river basins. However, a recapitulation of what has been done
according to these steps would give a more structured methodology.
Attention is drawn to relevant sections in the Methodological Guidelines (Samad and
Bandaragoda 1999), particularly to section 8 (Stakeholder Analysis), including the procedure on
developing a responsibility matrix, and also to appendix 3, which gives a check list for
identifying the existing institutional framework.
In a number of areas of data collection and analysis, a trend analysis is highly recommended.
This suggestion is strongly grounded on the proposition that an activity to trace the historical
development of the basin would throw light on many important aspects of institutional
development that have taken place, including the quality of the existing institutional framework in
terms of its appropriateness and adequacy. More importantly, it will help in identifying the
potential for improvement.
6.5
Appropriateness and Adequacy
The following key questions are relevant for assessing whether each institutional element is
appropriate and adequate for the current situation in the selected river basin.
Is the institutional element (any element related to laws, policies or organizational arrangements)
suitable and adequate for:
?
?
?
?
?
?
the existing physical system in the basin, in terms of soil conditions, topology, rainfall,
seasonal weather variations, etc.?
the water availability and quality situation in the basin?
the existing physical infrastructure available in the basin?
the existing socioeconomic situation in the basin?
the current technology used for operations?
the current performance levels?
This initial evaluation procedure will naturally raise a further set of similar questions on the
basis that the existing situation may need some changes. The analyst will have to assume the
potential extent and quality of the changes possible and try to relate the answers to suit a domain
of attainability.
Each identified institutional element needs to be assessed to ascertain their appropriateness
and their adequacy in terms of the potential for performance improvement (figure 9).
39
After effecting institutional analysis and designing the necessary institutional changes, the
action research phase of the study will test the viability of implementing the changes in the
existing institutional framework. As has been emphasized in several places of this document, an
improved institutional framework is not a sufficient condition for improving performance. An
essential requirement is to ensure that individuals and groups are motivated to achieve desired
objectives. For this purpose, appropriate management strategies are necessary.
6.6
Two Levels of Management
Institutions are necessary for two distinct levels of management: higher-level resources
management and lower-level delivery management. Although the set of institutions can
collectively cover both levels, often separate organizations are useful to handle the two levels of
management tasks. As has been highlighted in other institutional studies (IWMI’s BMZsupported parallel study on “Institutional Support Systems for Sustainable Local Management of
Irrigation in Water-Short Basins”), a set of minimum management tasks will form the basis for a
functional approach to integrated water resources management.
The Asian Development Bank has suggested a somewhat related functional approach for
“National Water Sector Profiles” (Arriëns et al. 1996: Vol. 2, appendix A) from which future
developments of this framework document will also draw.
A more recent study report makes a distinction between management of water resources and
delivery of water services, and lists a number of key management functions under five categories
(Berkoff 1997). The report also points out that functions are distinct from the agencies that could
be assigned to perform them, although in a holistic management approach, one agency may be
required to have a role in more than one function.
A basic division of various management functions between these two levels can be
conceptualized as the distribution given below:
6.6.1
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Water Resources Management Functions
Policy formulation
Data collection and dissemination
Planning
Public participation and interorganizational coordination
Research and Evaluation
Regulation
Resource mobilization and macro-level resource allocation
40
Figure 9. Institutional development for improved performance.
Assess the capacity of existing institutions to cope
with current water management objectives on the
basis of present physical and socioeconomic
characteristics of the river basin
Yes
Design of Institutional Change
Are the
existing institutions
appropriate?
No
Are the existing
institutions
adequate?
Identify requirements to
develop appropriate
institutions
Yes
No
Identify requirements to
develop adequate institutions
Design a modified institutional framework to match with present
objectives:
?
policies
?
laws and procedures
?
organizational structures
?
operational plans
?
Incentive mechanisms
Action Research
Develop and implement strategies to
establish a new institutional framework
Modify management
objectives to match
with possible
institutional change
Apply strategies for new adjusted
physical and organizational structures,
training, and establishment of new
laws and procedures
Is the required
institutional framework
in place?
No
41
Evaluate management
functions and apply
adjusted management
strategies to improve
performance
Yes
6.6.2
?
?
?
?
Water Service Delivery Functions
Design
Construction
Operation and Maintenance
Monitoring and Evaluation
6.7
Strategic Planning
While the institutional framework encompassing both these management levels needs to be
analyzed, a state-of-the-art management strategy also needs to be developed, particularly as a
guide to be followed during the action phase envisaged in this regional study. Strategic planning
will form an essential preparatory task at the beginning of this action phase.
As river-basin resources reach full commitment, the interactions at the basin level become
critical. Consumption increases in one area must be offset by corresponding decreases at another;
poorer quality effluent in an upstream area has direct impacts on downstream entitlements. Other
issues—flood zoning, safety and operation of dams— must, of course, always be regulated and
administered at the basin level. Thus the scope of management required is widening and the
attention is moving progressively upwards, but the strength of higher-level institutions is
probably declining precisely as this is happening. This institutional weakness needs to be
remedied in a search for strategies in improving the productivity of agricultural water
management.
As the largest user of water in most developing-country river basins, better agricultural water
management will be the key factor in the long-term sustainable water use in water-scarce river
basins. As most basin areas and most stakeholders are both linked with using water resources for
agriculture, the minimum set of management tasks can be assessed more closely for agricultural
production.
Each water basin is seen as unique in its features, physical, social, environmental and
economic. Depending on the contextual factors, the minimum set of management tasks can also
be ordered according to their importance. A composite performance indicator may be used to
capture the relative importance of these various tasks, and of the different water uses within the
basin.
The institutional analysis will finally be aimed at identifying effective institutional
arrangements for agricultural water management at two levels in the context of integrated water
resources management in a river basin. At the macro-level or basin (or subbasin) level, analysis
will deal with institutional arrangements that concern inter-sectoral allocation of water such as for
irrigation, domestic water supply, hydropower, environmental purposes and other uses which
depend on a common water source. The service-level analysis will focus institutional issues
relating to the multiple use of water within the irrigation service area. At this level, interest in
other subsectors will only be to the extent that they affect agricultural water use either directly or
indirectly. The water users’ collective action bodies will be part of this level of institutional
development.
42
Literature Cited
Abernethy, C. ed. 1996. The institutional framework for irrigation. Proceedings of a Workshop
held in Chiang Mai, Thailand, 1-5 November 1993. Colombo, Sri Lanka: Irrigation Management
Institute.
Arriëns, W. L.; J. Bird; J. Berkoff; and P. Mosley. 1996. Towards effective water policy in the
Asian and Pacific Region. (3 volumes). Proceedings of the Regional Consultation Workshop, 1014 May 1996, Manila, Philippines. Manila: Asian Development Bank.
Bandaragoda, D. J.; and G. R. Firdousi. 1992. Institutional factors affecting irrigation
performance in Pakistan: Research and policy priorities. IIMI Country Paper - Pakistan No. 4.
Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Irrigation Management Institute.
Bandaragoda D. J.; and S. U. Rehman. 1995. Warabandi in Pakistan's canal irrigation systems:
Widening gap between theory and practice. IIMI Country Paper - Pakistan No. 7, Colombo, Sri
Lanka: International Irrigation Management Institute.
Berkoff, D. J. W. 1997. Water resources functional analysis. Consultancy report prepared for the
Water Resources Secretariat, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Bromley, D.W. 1987. Irrigation institutions: The myth of management. In Water and water
policy in the world food supplies, ed. Wayne R. Jordan. College Station, USA: Texas University
Press.
Cernea, Michael. M. 1987. Farmer organization and institution building for sustainable
development, regional development dialogue. Vol. 8, No. 2. Nagoya, Japan: United Nations
Center for Regional Development.
Hunt, Chris. 1999. Transposing of water policies from developed to developing countries: The
case of user pays. Water International 24(4): 293–306. (December 1999)
ICWE (International Conference on Water and the Environment). 1992. The Dublin statement
and report. In International Conference on Water and the Environment: Development Issues for
the 21 st century, Dublin .
International Water Resources Association. 1999. Conference reports. Water International 24 (3):
277–278. (September 1999)
Jacobs, Jeffrey W. 1999. Comparing river basin development experiences in the Mississippi and
the Mekong. Water International 24(3):196–203.
43
Jepperson, Ronald L. 1991. Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism. In
Institutionalism in organizational analysis, ed. Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lachmann, L. M. 1971. The legacy of Max Weber. Berkeley, California: Glendessary Press.
Malano, Hector M.; Michael J. Bryant; and Hugh N. Turral. 1999. Management of water
resources: Can Australian experiences be transferred to Vietnam? Water International 24 (4):
307–315. (December 1999).
Merrey, Douglas, J. 1993. Institutional contexts for managing irrigated agriculture. In The
institutional framework for irrigation, 1996, ed. C. Abernethy, 7–22.
Proceedings of a
Workshop held in Chiang Mai, Thailand, 1-5 November 1993. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International
Irrigation Management Institute.
Molden, David; and R. Sakthivadivel. 1999. Water accounting to assess use and productivity of
water. International Journal of Water Resources Development 15 (1&2): 55–73.
Moore, Lew; Craig Philiip; and Allen Powers. 1994. Technical and institutional innovations
changing water resources management and allocation in the Western United States. In Efficient
water use, ed. H. Garduno and F. Arreguin-Cortes, 311–321. Mentevieo, Uruguay: UNESCO.
Mosley, M. Paul. 1996. A participatory process approach to development of a comprehensive
water resources management plan for Sri Lanka. Water International 21 (4): 191–197.
North, Douglas C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, Elinor. 1992. Crafting institutions for self governing irrigation systems. San Francisco,
California: Institute of Contemporary Studies.
Perry, C. J. 1999. The IIMI water resources paradigm-definitions and implications. Agriculture
Water Management 40:45–50.
Powell, Walter W.; and Paul J. DiMaggio. 1991. Institutionalism in organizational analysis.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Saleth, Maria, R.; and Ariel Dinar. 1999a. Water challenge and institutional response. (A CrossCountry Perspective), Policy Research Working Paper 2045. Washington D.C.: The World Bank.
Saleth, Maria, R.; and Ariel Dinar. 1999b. Evaluating water institutions and water sector
performance. World Bank Technical Paper No. 447. Washington D.C.: The World Bank.
44
Samad, M.; and Tissa Bandaragoda. 1999. Methodological guidelines for the five-country
regional study on development of effective water management institutions. Colombo, Sri Lanka:
International Water Management Institute.
Savenije, Hubert H. G.; and Pieter van der Zaag. 1998. The management of shared river basins:
Focus on development. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Hague. Revised and published as
"Conceptual framework for the management of shared river basins; with special reference to
SADC and EU.” Water Policy 2(1–2). The Hague: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Seckler, D. 1996. The new era of water resource management: From “dry” to “wet” water
savings. Research Report 3. Colombo Sri Lanka: International Irrigation Management Institute.
White, G. F. 1957. A perspective of river basin development. Law and Contemporary Problems
22(157–184).
White, G. F. 1977. Comparative analysis of complex river development. In Environmental effects
of complex river development, ed. G. F. White, 1–21. Boulder, Colorado, USA: Westview Press.
45
Postal Address
P O Box 2075
Colombo
Sri Lanka
Location
127, Sunil Mawatha
Pelawatta
Battaramulla
Sri Lanka
Tel.
94-1-867404, 869080
Fax
94-1-866854
E-mail
[email protected]
Website
www.iwmi.org
SM
IWMI is a Future Harvest Center
Supported by the CGIAR